What do you think is the best counterargument? That is, what’s the best reason to think that maybe this isn’t as tractable/neglected/important as you think?
Studies didn’t much control confounders. Twin/adoption studies will be able to control genetic confounders, but there are still many confounders (adoptive parents’ education, SES, etc..)
I responded on the neglected number 11.: “”Correlation does not imply causation”: (1) difficult child may get physical punishment more; (2) physical punishment negatively correlates with parental education or socioeconomic status; (3) physical punishment strongly correlates with parental violentness (indeed, physical punishment itself is a paradigmatic example of parental violentness). However, randomized controlled trial to find harmfulness of physical punishment of children will be very unethical, and therefore, such research is not ethically possible. However, it seems prima facie true that physical punishment, especially on high frequency (3-18 times/week) will be profoundly harmful.”
So basically your argument for this being causal rather than merely correlational is just “it is prima facie plausible” ?
Studies didn’t much control confounders. Twin/adoption studies will be able to control genetic confounders, but there are still many confounders (adoptive parents’ education, SES, etc..)
So basically your argument for this being causal rather than merely correlational is just “it is prima facie plausible” ?